Adan Perez, Jr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 1, 2009
• Docket: 13-09-00635-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBERS 13-09-00634-CR 13-09-00635-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

IN RE: ADAN PEREZ, JR. ____________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. ____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Yañez, Benavides, and Vela Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Adan Perez, Jr., pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus2 in the above

causes on November 23, 2009, asking this Court to direct the respondent, the presiding

judge of the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas, to provide him with an

opportunity to purchase the reporter’s record and other records pertaining to relator’s 1990

conviction.3 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus for the reasons stated herein.

1 See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).

2 Relator also filed a "m otion for leave" to file this petition for writ of m andam us. W e dism iss relator's m otion for leave to file the petition for writ of m andam us as m oot because the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure no longer require the relator to file a m otion for leave in an original proceeding. See generally T EX . R. A PP . P. 52 & cm t.

3 Relator raised this sam e issue in a previous petition for writ of m andam us, which was denied by this Court on Septem ber 22, 2009. See In re Perez, Nos. 13-09-00525-CR & 13-09-00526-CR, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7454, at *2-3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi Sept. 22, 2009, orig. proceeding) (per curiam ) ( m em . op., not First, the petition for writ of mandamus fails to comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See generally TEX . R. APP. P. 52.3. Second, relator has not

demonstrated that respondent expressly refused to rule on relator’s request or that an

unreasonable amount of time has passed since the request was filed. See In re Dimas,

88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding); In re Chavez, 62

S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d

424, 426 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding); accord O'Connor v. First

Ct. of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Third, as a general rule,

an indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to a free transcription of prior proceedings for

use in pursuing post-conviction habeas relief. In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex.

App.–Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding); see In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693

(Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding) (requiring an indigent criminal defendant

to show that the habeas corpus action is not frivolous and there is a specific need for the

trial records which are sought); Escobar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex.

App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, order); Eubanks v. Mullin, 909 S.W.2d 574, 576-77 (Tex.

App.–Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that relator has not shown himself entitled to the relief sought, and the

petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. TEX . R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Delivered and filed the 1st day of December, 2009.

designated for publication).